NHLPA starts another 'disclaimer' vote
View Single Post
01-04-2013, 10:05 AM
Smartest in the Room
Join Date: Apr 2006
Originally Posted by
The concessions that they are making still amount to a MAJOR give back by the NHLPA.
So, you offer scorched earth, and your defination of negotiating is to lower the flames by which the earth was initially scorched?
The offer the ownes made was akin to the players offering to eliminate the cap. It was a non-starter. So the players saying "OK, you can have the cap" that's negotiating?
Sorry, but that's not negotiating.
I get that the previous deal ended, but there IS a starting point to these current negotiations and that starting point is based on the last CBA.
The Owners want to improve their position from the previous deal but have not offered the players ONE inducement to get a deal done. Softening their stance on a scorched earth offer is not an inducement.
That's not negotiating.
Across the board, every aspect of every NHL offer sees the Owners improving their position and the players weakening in theirs.
Even the make whole is not going to make up the difference of 57 to 50 which is why the players are looking for a cap on escrow losses. So the Make Whole if accepted the way the owners proposed it still equates to a take back from the players.
Wake up NHLPA this is all about economic realities. The players have had it all their way for over 20 years. The owners are tired of the hockey operation portion of their business losing money. The owners aren't running a charity for the players.
Why people think the owners need to make the players whole is beyond me. Every player and agent knew that the new CBA would impact their deal when they signed it.
The players are going to regret their short sighted view of this. The way for them to make more money is to grow revenues and the popularity of the game.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by KINGS17